From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 8 19:32:05 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A28837B401 for ; Tue, 8 Apr 2003 19:32:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from outbound0.sv.meer.net (outbound0.sv.meer.net [205.217.152.13]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1690B43F75 for ; Tue, 8 Apr 2003 19:32:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jwz@jwz.org) Received: from mail.meer.net (mail.meer.net [209.157.152.14]) by outbound0.sv.meer.net (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h392Vi4x040079; Tue, 8 Apr 2003 19:31:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jwz@jwz.org) Received: from jwz.org (h132.128.meer.net [209.157.133.132]) by mail.meer.net (8.12.2/8.12.1/meer) with ESMTP id h392VhQW092916; Tue, 8 Apr 2003 19:31:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grendel.jwz.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by jwz.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id h392Vh730396; Tue, 8 Apr 2003 19:31:43 -0700 Sender: jwz@jwz.org Message-ID: <3E93860F.1896A053@jwz.org> Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 19:31:43 -0700 From: Jamie Zawinski Organization: my own bad self X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.02 (X11; N; Linux 2.4.9-13smp i686) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: shanehelms@eircom.net Subject: Re: sysinstall and xscreensaver X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 02:32:05 -0000 Shane Helms wrote: > > Against a determined adversary, xlockmore is probably (?) a bit more > secure than xscreensaver Excuse me? In what bizarro-universe can you possibly imagine xlockmore to be more secure than xscreensaver? The xlock/xlockmore model (of running the graphics demos and security code in the same address space) is *fundamentally* broken from a security standpoint. With xscreensaver's design, a fault in the eye-candy code will not cause the screen to unlock, as happens with xlock/xlockmore. In detail: http://www.jwz.org/xscreensaver/versus-xlock.html -- Jamie Zawinski jwz@jwz.org http://www.jwz.org/ jwz@dnalounge.com http://www.dnalounge.com/